homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.198.94.76
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 64 message thread spans 3 pages: 64 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
What File format with extension is best for SEO?
ganeshjacharya




msg:4521763
 7:49 am on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

What file format with extension is best suited by search engines?
  • page_name.html
  • pagename.html
  • page_name
  • pagename

 

rowtc2




msg:4521978
 8:26 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I use article-title.html
"-" means Google will see separate words, if you use "_" will see one word.

seoskunk




msg:4521991
 9:04 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

  • pagename

g1smd




msg:4521996
 9:22 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Always avoid underscores and spaces in URLs. Hyphens are fine.

You do not need an extension on the end of the URL for a page.

The URL for a folder or for the index page in a folder should end with a trailing slash.

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522017
 10:27 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

pagename
penisland and expertsexchange spring to mind.

BTW Google handles underscores far better than they used to.

seoskunk




msg:4522022
 10:37 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

@ Lame_Wolf well pagename is the best of the choices given IMHO

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522025
 10:42 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

seoskunk, anyone is entitled to an opinion, but you must take into consideration that some words are not suited to be joined together.

seoskunk




msg:4522028
 10:45 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

Of course Lame_Wolf , but as google is now able to determine the keyword even in joined up names and has done for some time, I don't see this as an issue.

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522032
 10:53 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't be so sure.

seoskunk




msg:4522033
 10:55 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

"sure" its goog my friend nothing is sure accept money

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522034
 10:57 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

"sure" its goog my friend nothing is sure accept money
And what is to say that a combination of words prevent adverts from being shown. No adverts, no money.

Plus, it could offend someone who is reading the URL wrongly.

[edited by: Lame_Wolf at 11:00 pm (utc) on Nov 23, 2012]

incrediBILL




msg:4522035
 10:57 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I used some underscores many moons ago before I knew better and the pages ranked tops so who knows. However, all the later pages using hyphens also ranked just as well. I've ranked a bazillion .html pages just fine, the extension doesn't really mean squat but I certainly wouldn't do any other extension like .php or something that divulges the underlying site technology, like the "x-powered-by" in the header, just as a matter of security .

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522036
 10:58 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I used some underscores many moons ago before I knew better and the pages ranked tops so who knows.
Same here and they still rank. Now I know better, I use lowercase and hyphens.
seoskunk




msg:4522039
 11:10 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I used some underscores many moons ago


me too and the pages ranked very well....... still do

[edited by: seoskunk at 11:12 pm (utc) on Nov 23, 2012]

incrediBILL




msg:4522040
 11:10 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I use lowercase


I still use mixed case just to mess with the really stupid Windows based kiddy script scrapers that think all URLs are case insensitive. They leave a trail of 404s that's easy to follow like breadcrumbs.

seoskunk




msg:4522041
 11:15 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

that think all URLs are case insensitive


Shoot me down in flames but I believe the original spec was that urls should be case insensitive by Tim Berners Lee

Dan01




msg:4522043
 11:22 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I use .htm

Several years ago I looked into it and from what I read, the older operating systems could only handle three-letter extensions. So at that time, I decided to stick to .htm. Does it matter? I don't think so, but why change?

g1smd




msg:4522045
 11:38 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

I believe the original spec

hostname is case insensitive. folders and files are case sensitive on Linux systems.

Windows...we won't go there.


older operating systems could only handle three-letter extensions

::cough:: Windows.

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.

seoskunk




msg:4522048
 11:53 pm on Nov 23, 2012 (gmt 0)

hostname is case insensitive. folders and files are case sensitive on Linux systems.


Correct, but if you read the spirit of the original directive, we all know Tim Berners Lee is a accessibility advocate, lowercase urls make sense for accessibility. Mixed case urls pushes domain protection vs domain function too far.

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4522050
 12:05 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

From a pure SEO standpoint "pagename" would be best, it's all the information you need to share though none of the examples would likely be considered bad by any major search engine.

From a useability point of view I prefer "pagename.html" simply because, if I choose to, I can create a static copy of my php pages and upload them to the server to completely get rid of the CMS or php script. There is nothing faster than full static pages(no database, no processing etc) and those work well with the old .html extension (unless you like mucking around with htaccess redirects and such).

I use both, it depends on the site.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 12:09 am (utc) on Nov 24, 2012]

Lame_Wolf




msg:4522056
 12:31 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

From a pure SEO standpoint "pagename" would be best

Define best.
I have URL's that are like...

SometimesLikeThis.html
or-sometimes-like-this.htmnl
and_some_like_this.html

and they all rank #1
You cannot get better than #1, so how is one better than the other?

it's all the information you need to share though none of the examples would likely be considered bad by any major search engine.
They were purely examples of innocent words when joined together can spell something different.
And like I said, it could offend someone somewhere. I know, i've had the pleasure of dealing with them.

Dan01




msg:4522063
 12:58 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.


I agree, you don't need anything. I use a .jpg and .gif for images and .htm for webpages.

serpsup




msg:4522073
 1:54 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

fwiw - I use both underscores and hyphens in most of my urls and they rank just fine. That may sound odd - but I use underscores to separate words, and append a common hyphenated word to the end of many of the urls... so this lead me down the road of both :)

If I had it to do over I'd probably go 100% hyphens though based on this thread. I think underscores don't hurt you as much as some in this thread have said. I have plenty of top 1-3 rankings with underscores and hyphens - and Google and Binghoo can tell the words apart separated by the underscores.

phranque




msg:4522075
 2:18 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

given that the default style for anchor text is underlined, underscores in URLs are a poor usabillity practice.

i.e., is that an underscore or an underlined space character?

ganeshjacharya




msg:4522077
 2:28 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

and the CamelCase
  • PageName.html
  • PageName

incrediBILL




msg:4522078
 2:35 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

given that the default style for anchor text is underlined, underscores in URLs are a poor usabillity practice.

i.e., is that an underscore or an underlined space character?


Usability? How so?

People either click it, bookmark it or select and copy it, neither action requires knowing if it's an underscore or a space.

ganeshjacharya




msg:4522080
 2:49 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

People either click it, bookmark it or select and copy it, neither action requires knowing if it's an underscore or a space.


People would also need to use voice to cite URLs. Suppose I am talking to someone on phone and that person is over a Laptop. How difficult would it be to cite example.com/This_Page_Name_is_What_you_need_to_Open

I deliberately added "T", "P", "W", "O" in capital and other characters in small. In such situations example.com/123 like URLs would be best suited.

lucy24




msg:4522082
 2:55 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Lowlines _ count as \w for RegEx purposes.
Hyphens - don't, and cause further inconvenience in groups.

If it doesn't fit neatly into a Regular Expression, sooner or later I will have to do something by hand.

Nowadays, you don't need any extension at all on the end of the URL for a page.

I agree, you don't need anything. I use ... .htm for webpages.

Uhm...?

I certainly wouldn't do any other extension like .php or something that divulges the underlying site technology

Then again you can pack your html pages with php includes that are coded to look so pretty,* nobody will ever suspect ;)


* I'll do a lot to help people on satellite connections, but I absolutely draw the line at minifying. It makes my skin crawl just looking at the result, and to heck with that 15% savings.

Dan01




msg:4522086
 4:07 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Uhm...?


It doesn't cost any extra to have an htm at the end and it was a convention I have used since 2000. I don't think NOT having an htm will affect the rank.

As per underscores and hyphens - I use underscores. I have no evidence, but years ago I looked into it and read that the underscore was seen as a space by the SEs. So I still use underscore, never a space and only a hyphen now and then. I now have some WP sites that use hyphens only.

[edited by: Dan01 at 4:23 am (utc) on Nov 24, 2012]

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4522087
 4:20 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)

Define best.

Minimal number of characters used in conveying the exact keyword(s) between the four options provided for pagename. I'd suggest using a hyphen between words but that wasn't one of the four options.

icouldrankthisnumberonetoo_butwhywouldIwantto.htm ?

I still prefer .html extensions on pages I am unlikely to need to update and that don't have dynamic content. A quick php_copy gives me a static .html copy that my server gives precedence to automatically without any redirecting in htaccess, it doesn't get much easier (or faster) than that.

It's all preference, search engines understand them all just fine and there are better places to make gains with your SEO efforts.

This 64 message thread spans 3 pages: 64 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved